[fullarr]

It feels like part of it is a cultural issue. People in the startup space largely seem uninterested in starting companies they will run their whole life

They just want the fun of experimentation and a payday

And like that's fine whatever, live your life, but it's creating a really crappy feedback loop of monopolization and buy outs

[marssaxman]

Different stages of the corporate life cycle require different skills and attract people with different temperaments; someone who launches a startup is not necessarily going to be great at running it for their whole life, nor feel fulfilled by doing so.

I prefer to work for startups whether they yield a "payday" or not - they usually don't - because huge organizations and complex bureaucracies leave me feeling miserable and demotivated.

[nickpp]

Any single Nx buyout results in N additional startups being funded. This is how VC culture operates and grows. It’s one of the main ingredients that build Silicon Valley’s success. Other countries are desperate to copy this model.

[fullarr]

I'm not arguing that it doesn't work and create a feedback loop

I'm arguing it's destructive long-term by creating a Goliath no one can compete with

Or several Goliaths in this case

Consolidation leads to stagnation

[nickpp]

Goliaths were and will always be around. But as long as there is an unregulated, free market - there will always be startups competing. It’s not easy, but it’s doable through innovation and creativity. The Goliaths are always more conservative, slower and less agile.

[JohnFen]

In the absence of regulation, goliaths will inevitably become monopolies and startups have no real chance to compete. The best a startup could be is to hope to be bought by the goliath.

[nickpp]

How exactly will startups will have “no real chance to compete”? What is the mechanism that will stop them?

Unless prevented by governmental regulation or similar (like patents) startups move faster and are more innovative and creative. They are not the cheapest but competing on price is not a good idea for a startup anyway, and the monopoly cannot be the cheapest possible since that would diminish profits - then what would be the advantage to be a monopoly?

A monopolised market is ripe for disruption and VC are dying to fund startups who can claim a chunk of that market. Any startup bought out by a Goliath will fund another 10 in its stead.

I know zero cases of unbeatable monopolies in a free market. All monopolies had government support. Do you have any examples?

[JohnFen]

> How exactly will startups will have “no real chance to compete”? What is the mechanism that will stop them?

The established monopoly company will, either by strong-arming suppliers, service providers, and marketplaces into not doing business with the startup, or by just buying them.

At least, that's how it's traditionally been done.

[gmerc]

That’s libertarian religious scripture that needs to be backed up by solid facts.

[seniorivn]

the only solid fact that you need is that tech giants of the past are not tech giants today, and the same way MS missed mobile market, Nokia failed with touchscreen smartphones, atnt and its parts failed to innovate, ibm lost and left pc/x86server etc, current giants are likely to loose. The only difference now is that the biggest competition today is from foreign companies that leads to them being able to get support of government and therefore compete not on the basis of merit, but in a political way.

[JohnFen]

> the only solid fact that you need is that tech giants of the past are not tech giants today

That's far from the only solid fact you need to know, though. You need to know the conditions and circumstances around it all.